It just shows the magnitude of the entitlement culture in Europe that is creeping into this country that the Dems seem to support in ever increasing entitlement programs, especially to the poor.

Yeah. Cause the poor have it so easy. Spoken like someone who is truly clueless.

Got news for you Billy Bob. There is a segment of the conservative movement that believes you're no different than those on welfare.

Where's the link proving your pension system is fully funded? I thought it at least possible you are in some magical pension funded where everything is well. You being a stickler for facts and all.

09-21-2012, 02:29 PM

LaFireEducator

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Yeah. Cause the poor have it so easy. Spoken like someone who is truly clueless.

I never said that the poor had it easy, but why should you and I support them? I work for everything i have, and so does some of the poor. However many of them are where they are because they don't want to work, quit school, got hung up in drugs or alcohol, got hung up in gangs and crime and decided that sex would be nice without taking precautuions. Choices. Poor choices. And now somehow I'm expected to take care of them because of those choices? Soory but that's not fair .. and now the Dems want the rich to pay even more so that we can maintain that lifestyle? Nope. Nope. Nope.

Got news for you Billy Bob. There is a segment of the conservative movement that believes you're no different than those on welfare.

No. They believe that there are elements of public compenation that are out of wack - benefits and retirement. And collective bargaining. And in many places they are right. There's nothing wrong with public sector employees poaying 20-40% of health care costs, just like the majority of the private sector. Same with 501K for recent and new employees instead of the current retirement system. Fact is as public sector employees we need to be willing to accept less as the current system just ain't working and will go broke.

Where's the link proving your pension system is fully funded? I thought it at least possible you are in some magical pension funded where everything is well. You being a stickler for facts and all.

Point is it will support anticipated retirees.

09-21-2012, 03:02 PM

scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Point is it will support anticipated retirees.

Which is not what you stated.

You stated:

Quote:

Funny thing is the Fire & Police Retirement System here in LA is fully funded and solvent as well.

Which is significantly different. It will support anticipated retirees with greater investment returns in the future or greater contributions from either other the employee or employer.

So what? A budget is only a guideline. What matters is whether funds are appropriated. And that is happening. In case you haven't noticed, the government has not shut down.

Who couldn't have noticed that the juggernaut of institutionalized bureaucratic coercion we call the Federal Government is going full speed ahead, driving up our National Debt to over $16,000,000,000,000.00?

Besides, if Obama was to pass a budget, he might have to adhere to it, and that would get in the way of spending our great-grand children's money, and advancing the Cloward–Piven strategy.

Notice the blatant lying Obama did during his Univision interview. They actually asked him some tough questions about his long list of failures. It's a said state of affairs that the English-speaking Obama-loving media here in America won't ask him questions like those.

09-21-2012, 05:16 PM

scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

NC State Treasure's Annual Report. And I re-emphasize that NC is one of only 7 states that maintains a AAA rating, while CA's is in the toilet, and the Federal Government's is actively slipping.

Not what you stated. You stated your pension plan was:

Quote:

......SOLVENT. FULLY FUNDED. IT REQUIRES NO BAILOUT. THERE IS NO TIME BOMB IN THE NC RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

You conveniently changed the subject. Your state's credit rating is nice. But is not important. CA is still the big dog in the US economy. NC is so far behind (about 10th, and a 5th of CA's ), we're in your rearview mirror getting ready to lap you.....again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

I pay taxes too, so you see, I'm self-employed. I live here, I shop here, I pay taxes here (sales, ad valorem, etc.) That makes me a pretty brand loyal customer.Who couldn't have noticed that the juggernaut of institutionalized bureaucratic coercion we call the Federal Government is going full speed ahead, driving up our National Debt to over $16,000,000,000,000.00?

Wow. Conservatives are concerned about debt. They said nothing when Bush doubled the national debt. BTW, the US has been in worse economic conditions where debt exceeded GDP. Guess what moonbat? We came back....roaring. It's not our first rodeo. These conditions are not new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Besides, if Obama was to pass a budget, he might have to adhere to it, and that would get in the way of spending our great-grand children's money, and advancing the Cloward–Piven strategy.

Yawn!!! No president has ever governed to a budget. It's a great idea when they're passed, but adherence rarely occurs since no one knows what will happen during the course of that budget year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Notice the blatant lying Obama did during his Univision interview. They actually asked him some tough questions about his long list of failures. It's a said state of affairs that the English-speaking Obama-loving media here in America won't ask him questions like those.

Why would you care? It's not like anything says will make you happy.

09-21-2012, 05:55 PM

LaFireEducator

Why would you care? It's not like anything says will make you happy.

Wrong.

The words "I conceed" from Obama's lips would make me giddy like a schoolgirl.

09-21-2012, 07:26 PM

txgp17

Revealed: Mitt Romney’s tax returns
Mitt Romney’s campaign released his 2011 tax information this afternoon, as well as a notarized letter from PriceWaterhouseCoopers attesting to Romney’s tax rates from 1990-2009.
Regarding the newly-filed 2011 Tax Return:

In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.

Regarding the PWC letter covering the Romneys’ tax filings over 20 years, from 1990 – 2009:

In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100% of the taxes that they owed.

Mitt Romney gave more than 13% of his income over 20 years to charity, and didn’t even always take the full tax deduction. If this isn’t it, can somebody please explain to me exactly what it is that a “fair share” is supposed to look like?

ETA - Romney's charitable giving rate is double what Obama's is. And he paid a higher rate than was required. Mitt Romney gave more to charity in an average day this year than Joe Biden has given in over a decade combined.

09-21-2012, 07:42 PM

txgp17

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

You conveniently changed the subject.

I most decidedly did not. The retirement system is funded with the funds from employees and employers as prescribed by law. Money isn't kicked in from the general fund to keep it afloat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Your state's credit rating is nice. But is not important.

Coming from an Obama fanbio, I would expect nothing less than a total disregard for a credit score. Besides, it's just other people's money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

CA is still the big dog in the US economy. NC is so far behind (about 10th, and a 5th of CA's ), we're in your rearview mirror getting ready to lap you.....again.

That's nice, but you're only measuring GDP. When Governor Screwball gets done raising state sales and income taxes this November, it won't do much to attract people from other states with lower tax rates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Wow. Conservatives are concerned about debt. They said nothing when Bush doubled the national debt.

Yes, we did. You just refused to listen. Going in debt for a single event MIGHT be worth it. Going in debt for a never ending program that you can never adequately pay for, is suicidal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

BTW, the US has been in worse economic conditions where debt exceeded GDP. Guess what moonbat? We came back....roaring.

Oh, you mean like that time when similar policies kept us in a depression for 10 years? Or do you mean now where we have one of the the weakest economic recoveries on record?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

It's not our first rodeo. These conditions are not new.

Yet ya'll still haven't learned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Yawn!!! No president has ever governed to a budget.

To the penny, no. But they at least pass a budget and can try. This President's budget was so radical that even his own party runs from it like the plaque. He couldn't even get 5 people from his own party to vote for it.

The full extent of Obama’s failure as a president and America’s failure for having chosen and tolerated him becomes more horribly evident with each passing day. But El-Rushbo had the degrading farce formerly known as Hope & Change nicely summed up back in November 2010:

Quote:

“Barack Obama’s presidency is graffiti on the walls of American history.”

It would be hard to put it much better.

09-21-2012, 08:52 PM

scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

I most decidedly did not. The retirement system is funded with the funds from employees and employers as prescribed by law. Money isn't kicked in from the general fund to keep it afloat.

Not what you stated. You stated the pension was fully funded. Which isn't true and only proves you don't what that term means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Coming from an Obama fanbio, I would expect nothing less than a total disregard for a credit score. Besides, it's just other people's money.

Especially since those were the same ratings agencies that gave CDS's and securitized mortgages the same risk value as T-Bills. They are the same ratings agencies that were giving AAA ratings to firms like Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers right up until the time they went bellyup. When drug up for congressional review of the fiscal crisis, their CEO's stated their ratings are only recommendations and not a true picture of fiscal health. One of the many reasons I discard them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

That's nice, but you're only measuring GDP. When Governor Screwball gets done raising state sales and income taxes this November, it won't do much to attract people from other states with lower tax rates.

I hope you get more expats from CA. Good luck. We'll manage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Yes, we did. You just refused to listen. Going in debt for a single event MIGHT be worth it. Going in debt for a never ending program that you can never adequately pay for, is suicidal.

Please post all your writings on this topic that were critical of Bush when he passed Medicare Part D and put two shooting wars on the national credit card after lowering taxes. You should have no problem posting any of your protests since you like to show links. I'll save you the time. You never said a word about Bush's profligate spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Oh, you mean like that time when similar policies kept us in a depression for 10 years? Or do you mean now where we have one of the the weakest economic recoveries on record?

Actually that isn't true. FDR's policies (assuming you are discussing the New Deal) led to significant economic growth (compared to what he inherited) by the end of his first term. Non-farm employment was cut in half by the end of 1936. Or you could also be discussing Reagan. He used massive deficits (for the time) to get the US out of a recessionary period. But since you like actually read a book, I'm sure you knew that Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years. And conservatives (like they did with Bush) said nothing. In Reagan's case, they canonize an individual who wouldn't get support from their party given today's purity test that is demanded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Yet ya'll still haven't learned.

Conservatives have yet to put forth an alternative plan that has been proven to work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

To the penny, no. But they at least pass a budget and can try. This President's budget was so radical that even his own party runs from it like the plaque. He couldn't even get 5 people from his own party to vote for it.

You mean like the way GOP congressional reps and Romney are running from Ryan's Medicare reform?

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

The full extent of Obama’s failure as a president and America’s failure for having chosen and tolerated him becomes more horribly evident with each passing day. But El-Rushbo had the degrading farce formerly known as Hope & Change nicely summed up back in November 2010:It would be hard to put it much better.

Great. Quoting Limbaugh. It all makes sense. If I ever need advice on drug abuse, illegal drug purchasing, getting divorced, or avoiding the draft, he'll be my go-to guy. Nice to know you get your political perspectives from an entertainer. That would be like me getting political perspectives from Jon Stewart. Who is at least funny with ratings that Limbaugh could only dream about.

09-23-2012, 12:31 AM

txgp17

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Not what you stated. You stated the pension was fully funded. Which isn't true and only proves you don't what that term means.

Funny, the link you offered said it did, "A Pew Center for the State's report on pensions shows that as of 2008, North Carolina's pension system was fully funded, according to reasonable actuarial standards." Granted, the stock market hit of 08 put a dent in it, but it's steadily coming back, far faster than President Downgrade's unemployment numbers.

A generally accepted measure of the soundness of any retirement system is to relate the total assets to the total accrued liabilities. This determines the funded ratio or percentage of the System. But I'm sure you'll invent another goal line to measure it by based on "opportunity cost estimates" or some other hocus-pokus that would get any CPA's professional license revoked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

I hope you get more expats from CA. Good luck. We'll manage.

You'll get the expats from Mexico, looking for hand outs paid for by other people. CA can't print money like the Fed can, but that doesn't stop Governor Brown from spending it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Please post all your writings on this topic that were critical of Bush when he passed Medicare Part D and put two shooting wars on the national credit card after lowering taxes.

Every time someone provides proof that your wacko litmus tests doesn't support your cockamamie ideas, you backpedal and move the goal line. You're original statement (firehouse.com/forums/t124576-4/#post1341335) was: "They (conservatives) said nothing when Bush doubled the national debt."

And now you move the goal line by demanding that it must come from me, and it must be about Medicare Part D or Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, and it must be on this site. I wasn't active on this site during that time frame, and my first ever post here was on 4/10/2008 (firehouse.com/forums/t74946/#post941882), nearly 5 years after the Medicare D bill was introduced. BTW, Medicare D would have never made it to Bush's desk without Democrat votes, the GOP did not have a filibuster proof majority. The same cannot be said about the Obamacare.

You should have no problem posting any of your protests since you like to show links. I'll save you the time. You never said a word about Bush's profligate spending.

Oh really? We've been down this road before of me proving that you're a liar about criticism of GWBush (firehouse.com/forums/t104416-18/#post1044490), but we can go down it again, since you're glutton for punishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Bush has vetoed almost zero spending bills since he's been in office.

Yeah Bush cut taxes, but he failed to reduce spending. Where do you think that leads to?

And...

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

His reluctance to write the word VETO can account for most.

And...

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

For the record, giving bailout money, during this present recession, was started under GWB's administration.“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Bush once said in a CNN interview in December of 2008.

You're memory of conservatives criticizing Bush is no better than you knowledge of fiscal years, or your memory of who had a majority in the 103rd Congress. (firehouse.com/forums/t110672/#post1098877)

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Actually that isn't true. FDR's policies (assuming you are discussing the New Deal) led to significant economic growth (compared to what he inherited) by the end of his first term. Non-farm employment was cut in half by the end of 1936.

So his policies only took 7 years to work? That's not something you should be bragging about. The duration of The Great Depression is all the proof you need. At no other time in history did the Federal Government expand & interfere more than it did then, and no other depression in American history has lasted as long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years. And conservatives (like they did with Bush) said nothing.

The Obama fanboi criticizing someone for drug use. Wow. Let us all know when the Choom Gang reunion is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Nice to know you get your political perspectives from an entertainer. That would be like me getting political perspectives from Jon Stewart. Who is at least funny with ratings that Limbaugh could only dream about.

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p...ps393da9f8.gif
The English language lacks words to describe how utterly false that is. Limbaugh has about 10 times as many listeners as Stewart has viewers. On Forbes most powerful celebrities list, he's #19. Where did Stewart rank? He didn't make the list, not even an honorable mention. (forbes.com/celebrities/list/) And last year Limbaugh made about 4 times the amount of money that Stewart did. If Limbaugh truly was a joke, liberals wouldn't spend so much time attacking him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

The best soundbite:
GM is alive, bin Laden is dead.

And Ambassador Stevens is dead too.

All you're capable of is spreading lies and misquoting conservatives, like when you allege that the Iraq War was sold to Americans as not going to cost any taxpayer dollars.(firehouse.com/forums/t110147-5/#post1094204) Or when you said $3 Trillion was the cost of the Iraq War. (firehouse.com/forums/t107553/#post1048417)

Your posts here are nothing short of Weapons Grade Stupidity. You should really look into expanding your income by writing fiction novels. Your writings here could account for the first few installments of a series.

This has been yet another rebuttal of the lying liberal marxist slumlord brought to you by a simple southern boy from NC.

Funny, the link you offered said it did, "A Pew Center for the State's report on pensions shows that as of 2008, North Carolina's pension system was fully funded, according to reasonable actuarial standards." Granted, the stock market hit of 08 put a dent in it, but it's steadily coming back, far faster than President Downgrade's unemployment numbers.

Funnier is that you stated the pensions were fully funded when the link I posted show that is not the case. Using the Pew Center's criteria, I could say that just about all pension systems are fully funded. You tell us which statement is more accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

A generally accepted measure of the soundness of any retirement system is to relate the total assets to the total accrued liabilities. This determines the funded ratio or percentage of the System. But I'm sure you'll invent another goal line to measure it by based on "opportunity cost estimates" or some other hocus-pokus that would get any CPA's professional license revoked.

No. I'm not the one claiming a system is fully funded when I just proved that it wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

You'll get the expats from Mexico, looking for hand outs paid for by other people. CA can't print money like the Fed can, but that doesn't stop Governor Brown from spending it.

We'll manage moonbat. We're still one of the top economies in the world. Something NC won't ever have to worry about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Every time someone provides proof that your wacko litmus tests doesn't support your cockamamie ideas, you backpedal and move the goal line. You're original statement (firehouse.com/forums/t124576-4/#post1341335) was: "They (conservatives) said nothing when Bush doubled the national debt."

Ha ha ha. Their actions speak louder than their words. These were the same groups that supported him for re-election. If they supported Bush, then they supported his policies. That's what the whole concept of voting means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

And now you move the goal line by demanding that it must come from me, and it must be about Medicare Part D or Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, and it must be on this site. I wasn't active on this site during that time frame, and my first ever post here was on 4/10/2008 (firehouse.com/forums/t74946/#post941882), nearly 5 years after the Medicare D bill was introduced. BTW, Medicare D would have never made it to Bush's desk without Democrat votes, the GOP did not have a filibuster proof majority. The same cannot be said about the Obamacare.

So what? Prove to us you were vocal about Bush's profligate spending during his first term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Oh really? We've been down this road before of me proving that you're a liar about criticism of GWBush (firehouse.com/forums/t104416-18/#post1044490), but we can go down it again, since you're glutton for punishment.And...And...

So who did you vote for in that election? Bush or Kerry? If you voted for Bush, then you supported his policies. That's what the whole concept of voting means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

You're memory of conservatives criticizing Bush is no better than you knowledge of fiscal years, or your memory of who had a majority in the 103rd Congress. (firehouse.com/forums/t110672/#post1098877)So his policies only took 7 years to work? That's not something you should be bragging about. The duration of The Great Depression is all the proof you need. At no other time in history did the Federal Government expand & interfere more than it did then, and no other depression in American history has lasted as long.

There is nothing that proves any of the alternatives put forth by conservatives would have shortened that time.

And while we're at it, I wrote that Bush's budget deficits would pale in comparison to President Downgrades. (firehouse.com/forums/t110001-7/#post1090391)

And who did they support for president? The Freedomworks article was written in 2003. So how did they punish Bush for his wild spending? If there is no consequence, then criticism has no meaning. Cheney said it best when confronted by critics, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And the Bush Administration acted accordingly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Liberals hate it when we're right.It's called the free market, but I wouldn't expect a Marxist like you to know anything about it.

Since that never happens, we have nothing to worry about, especially from the moonbat crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

The Obama fanboi criticizing someone for drug use. Wow. Let us all know when the Choom Gang reunion is.

This point makes no sense. Nor does it change the fact that Limbaugh is an expert at drug abuse, getting divorced, and dodging the draft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

The English language lacks words to describe how utterly false that is. Limbaugh has about 10 times as many listeners as Stewart has viewers.

Limbaugh has about 15 million listeners per week. That's about 3m per day. Stewart is about 2.25. Not too bad given that his show isn't nearly as long as Limbaugh's. Regardless, Stewart is at least funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

On Forbes most powerful celebrities list, he's #19. Where did Stewart rank? He didn't make the list, not even an honorable mention. (forbes.com/celebrities/list/) And last year Limbaugh made about 4 times the amount of money that Stewart did. If Limbaugh truly was a joke, liberals wouldn't spend so much time attacking him.And Ambassador Stevens is dead too.

I didn't discuss Limbaugh till you brought him up in conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

All you're capable of is spreading lies and misquoting conservatives, like when you allege that the Iraq War was sold to Americans as not going to cost any taxpayer dollars.(firehouse.com/forums/t110147-5/#post1094204) Or when you said $3 Trillion was the cost of the Iraq War. (firehouse.com/forums/t107553/#post1048417)

So you're happy the Iraq War has direct costs of $800B of borrowed money with trillions more to come in indirect costs? So much for your claim of fiscal conservatism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Your posts here are nothing short of Weapons Grade Stupidity. You should really look into expanding your income by writing fiction novels. Your writings here could account for the first few installments of a series.

I'll just use your responses for my idiot sidekick in the novel you believe I should write.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

This has been yet another rebuttal of the lying liberal marxist slumlord brought to you by a simple southern boy from NC.

Thanks for the slumlord attack. Always great fun. I thought I had mentioned before, but maybe I didn't. Being called a slumlord typically involves a connotation of residential rentals. Mine are all commercial properties. B-2 occupancies mostly. They get inspected by the FD every year. The fact that you believe I was a residential landlord only continues to show that your thinking is like yourself. Small time. And I am greatly amused that you accuse me of being a marxist and a property owner at the same time. It's obvious you know nothing of what it means to be a marxist. Keep 'em coming.

I'm not sure why you posted the flags of the two campaigns. I guess you're trying to make the statement that Obama is desecrating the flag by changing it. Maybe he is taking a cue from another great president that emblazoned his visage over the stars and stripes.

Funnier is that you stated the pensions were fully funded when the link I posted show that is not the case. Using the Pew Center's criteria, I could say that just about all pension systems are fully funded. You tell us which statement is more accurate.

You use "projections", I use actual costs funded by actual revenues. You use opinions, I use facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

No. I'm not the one claiming a system is fully funded when I just proved that it wasn't.

You only proved that someone thinks it might be underfunded in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Ha ha ha. Their actions speak louder than their words. These were the same groups that supported him for re-election. If they supported Bush, then they supported his policies. That's what the whole concept of voting means.

So your vote for Obama means you support his policy of violating the 4th Amendment and indefinite detention in offshore prisons. Because that's what you accused Bush of,
here: firehouse.com/forums/t81762/#post683490
here: firehouse.com/forums/t107618/#post1050391
here: firehouse.com/forums/t102568/#post974793
here: firehouse.com/forums/t93271/#post850875
here: firehouse.com/forums/t81762/#post683519
That's what Obama continues to do. And on the last one you say that if Rush Limbaugh can have privacy, so should everyone else. Your posts are the gifts that keep on giving.

Bush only claimed immunity from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but President Downgrade claims the government has immunity from all laws, not just one. Does your vote for him contradict all your previous criticisms of warrant-less wiretapping, or has your position "evolved" based on the fact on who's in office?

Every time someone criticizes a liberal in these forums you spout off how "so-and-so-Conservative" did it too, and "such-and-such-Republican" did it too. It's a frail effort to justify the means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

So what? Prove to us you were vocal about Bush's profligate spending during his first term.

I provided links where I criticized Bush on spending while he was office. Now you demand it must have occurred in his first term, even after I prove that my first post was on 4/10/2008 (firehouse.com/forums/t74946/#post941882).

So after debunking your statement and showing how you move the goal line, you respond by moving the goal line. You're like a child who keeps adding rules to the game to ensure that he wins.

So who did you vote for in that election? Bush or Kerry? If you voted for Bush, then you supported his policies. That's what the whole concept of voting means.

Already burst this bubble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

There is nothing that proves any of the alternatives put forth by conservatives would have shortened that time.

There's plenty, you're just too absorbed into fairy tales to recognize it. Like relying on inflated projections based on hypotheticals, rather than Generally Accepted Accounting Practices used by CPA's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

This point makes no sense. Nor does it change the fact that Limbaugh is an expert at drug abuse, getting divorced, and dodging the draft.

President Downgrade writes and speaks openly about using drugs "enthusiastically.” If drug abuse discredits Limbaugh entirely, what does it do for President Downgrade?

You voted for President Downgrade, so you endorse him and everything he stands for, including drug abuse. Or is that just some standard you want applied when it fits your factually challenged narrative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Limbaugh has about 15 million listeners per week. That's about 3m per day. Stewart is about 2.25. Not too bad given that his show isn't nearly as long as Limbaugh's.

You are struggling. Limbaugh's audience, ratings, and advertising income blows Stewart's out of the water. What's worst, Limbaugh is on when most people are working, while Stewart is one when most people are at home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Regardless, Stewart is at least funny.

Like many Americans, you'd rather be entertained than informed. Which is why the average person can name the finalists on American Idol, but can't name the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

I didn't discuss Limbaugh till you brought him up in conversation.

I cited him as the source of the quote, you made it a defamation session. And can you cite what crimes Limbaugh was convicted of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

So much for your claim of fiscal conservatism.

So much for your claim of a right to privacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Thanks for the slumlord attack. Always great fun. I thought I had mentioned before, but maybe I didn't. Being called a slumlord typically involves a connotation of residential rentals. My wife's are all commercial properties. B-2 occupancies mostly. They get inspected by the FD every year. The fact that you believe I was a residential landlord only continues to show that your thinking is like yourself.

I'm not sure why you posted the flags of the two campaigns. I guess you're trying to make the statement that Obama is desecrating the flag by changing it. Maybe he is taking a cue from another great president that emblazoned his visage over the stars and stripes.

The US Flag code wasn't adopted or made into law until the 20th century. Lincoln was elected in the 19th.

Do you have proof that the Lincoln flag was produced and endorsed by the Lincoln campaign? I didn't think so. It could have been produced by anyone supporting him.

This has been yet another rebuttal of the lying liberal marxist slumlord brought to you by a simple southern boy from NC.

09-23-2012, 04:09 PM

scfire86

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

You use "projections", I use actual costs funded by actual revenues. You use opinions, I use facts. You only proved that someone thinks it might be underfunded in the future.

My facts are just as good as yours. Your point is also moving the goal line. You claimed the fund was fully funded. It isn't. The standard you are now using could be applied to any pension fund with a similar funding level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

So your vote for Obama means you support his policy of violating the 4th Amendment and indefinite detention in offshore prisons.

Apparently the courts believe he is not doing so. Please carry on with your firehouse lawyer belief to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

That's what Obama continues to do. And on the last one you say that if Rush Limbaugh can have privacy, so should everyone else. Your posts are the gifts that keep on giving.

He's made himself a public figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Bush only claimed immunity from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but President Downgrade claims the government has immunity from all laws, not just one. Does your vote for him contradict all your previous criticisms of warrant-less wiretapping, or has your position "evolved" based on the fact on who's in office?

See first response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Every time someone criticizes a liberal in these forums you spout off how "so-and-so-Conservative" did it too, and "such-and-such-Republican" did it too. It's a frail effort to justify the means.I provided links where I criticized Bush on spending while he was office. Now you demand it must have occurred in his first term, even after I prove that my first post was on 4/10/2008 (firehouse.com/forums/t74946/#post941882).

Yet you still supported him by your vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

So after debunking your statement and showing how you move the goal line, you respond by moving the goal line. You're like a child who keeps adding rules to the game to ensure that he wins.

Can't help it if you can't keep up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

This would effectively sum up everything you've posted here:Already burst this bubble. There's plenty, you're just too absorbed into fairy tales to recognize it. Like relying on inflated projections based on hypotheticals, rather than Generally Accepted Accounting Practices used by CPA's. It makes no sense to those who lack it.

Lol. You show continually you have no clue about any of that mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Clearly you have no idea what the Choom Gang is. The Choom Gang is the pot smoking horde that President Downgrade ran with in High School.

Looks like typical high school kids to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

President Downgrade writes and speaks openly about using drugs "enthusiastically.” If drug abuse discredits Limbaugh entirely, what does it do for President Downgrade?

Not the point. You cited Limbaugh as a source. Obama's drug use occurred when he was a very young man. Same as many from his age. Obama has also stated he regrets his use and doesn't believe it is behavior that should be followed. Limbaugh's drug addiction occurred as a grown man in his 50's. Complicating his addiction were his comments:

Quote:

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up,"

Apparently being sent up also means allowing yourself to be checked into rehab.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

You voted for President Downgrade, so you endorse him and everything he stands for, including drug abuse. Or is that just some standard you want applied when it fits your factually challenged narrative?

See above response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

You are struggling. Limbaugh's audience, ratings, and advertising income blows Stewart's out of the water. What's worst, Limbaugh is on when most people are working, while Stewart is one when most people are at home.

Two interesting points. First off is I admit you got me on that one. I'll take one out of a thousand. Secondly, who listens to Limbaugh given the hours his show is on the air. Most people I know are working during those hours. And rarely does an employer let an employee listen to the radio while they are working. That would mean mostly people who are not working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Like many Americans, you'd rather be entertained than informed. Which is why the average person can name the finalists on American Idol, but can't name the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Who would want to know about nine stodgy old folks in robes besides moonbats like you? Besides, wasn't their decision on Obamacare cool?

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

I cited him as the source of the quote, you made it a defamation session. And can you cite what crimes Limbaugh was convicted of?

I never said he was convicted of any crimes. Moot point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

So much for your claim of a right to privacy. Again you try to put words in other's mouths. I didn't say residential, you did.

Limbaugh is a self made public figure. A much different standard for privacy laws.

[LIST=1][*]The US Flag code wasn't adopted or made into law until the 20th century. Lincoln was elected in the 19th.[*]Do you have proof that the Lincoln flag was produced and endorsed by the Lincoln campaign? I didn't think so.

Can you prove it wasn't? I didn't think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

It could have been produced by anyone supporting him.

So prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

Obama's flag on the other hand,is produced and sold by the Obama Campaign.
It proves that President Downgrade is a narcissist.

Another piece of firehouse psychology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txgp17

This has been yet another rebuttal of the lying liberal marxist slumlord brought to you by a simple southern boy from NC.

I'll let you have the last word. It's been fun playing with you......again.

It's obvious you haven't amounted to much. Which is very common for folks like you that are that angry.

09-23-2012, 09:51 PM

txgp17

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

My facts are just as good as yours.

Except you aren't using facts, you're using projections, also known as estimates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Your point is also moving the goal line. You claimed the fund was fully funded. It isn't. The standard you are now using could be applied to any pension fund with a similar funding level.

If it has a "similar funding level", then it has a similar revenue to liability ratio, and thus it would also be fully funded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Apparently the courts believe he is not doing so.

The courts didn't think Bush was doing anything wrong either, but that didn't stop you from criticizing him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Please carry on with your firehouse lawyer belief to the contrary.

I'm only applying the standard that you've set forth in previous posts. Nice to see you're dissatisfied with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

He's made himself a public figure.

Irrelevant. You used Limbaugh as evidence that everyone deserves privacy. Now under President Zero, privacy and the 4th Amendment don't matter to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

See first response.

So you are in favor of warrantless wiretapping. Then what motivated you to criticize it in the under GWBush?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Yet you still supported him by your vote.

Because he kept Americans safe from terrorist attacks after 9/11, something President Zero has failed to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Can't help it if you can't keep up.

You haven't seen the football since kickoff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Lol. You show continually you have no clue about any of that mentioned.

My college transcripts say otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Looks like typical high school kids to me.

President Downgrade used drugs well into his young adult life. Liberals like you were quite critical of Bush doing the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Not the point.

It is the point, you just refuse to address it because it contradicts your flawed logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

You cited Limbaugh as a source. Obama's drug use occurred when he was a very young man.

He was an adult, legally responsible for his behavior and choices in life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Same as many from his age.

Argumentum ad populum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Obama has also stated he regrets his use and doesn't believe it is behavior that should be followed.

And so did Bush and Limbaugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Limbaugh's drug addiction occurred as a grown man in his 50's. Complicating his addiction were his comments:

Complicating your position are your comments, but you run away from them quite well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

who listens to Limbaugh given the hours his show is on the air.

Umm, about 15,000,000 people a week, that's who.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Most people I know are working during those hours.

Doesn't mean that can't listen to a radio or smart phone app.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

And rarely does an employer let an employee listen to the radio while they are working.

Spoken like someone who knows little about working. And one doesn't need a radio, the iheart radio app play him, and subscribers to his site and listen commercial free anytime they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

That would mean mostly people who are not working.

It sure isn't the 47% who depend on government handouts for their existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Besides, wasn't their decision on Obamacare cool?

Are you taking about that thing where one person wrote both the majority opinion and the dissent opinion? You mean that little thing where President Zero told the American people it wasn't a tax, but sent his lawyer in to argue that is was a tax.

Any corporate executive using such double speak to sell stocks or bonds in their company was be swiftly charged by the SEC. If I don't like a company's actions, I can choose to not by their stock or their products. We have no such choice with government, participation is compulsory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

I never said he was convicted of any crimes.

I didn't say you did, I'm just asking you tell us all what crimes Limbaugh was convicted of, which is nothing. And by the way, President Zero wasn't convicted of anything either, but you unload on Limbaugh for using less prohibited substances than President Downgrade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Limbaugh is a self made public figure. A much different standard for privacy laws.

You didn't feel that way here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

If rights to privacy are good enough for Rush, they're good enough for the rest of us.

You said you wanted the same privacy level that Limbaugh has. Now you argue the he deserves less because he's famous. Which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Can you prove it wasn't? I didn't think so.

Gee, you ask someone to prove a negative. One wonders why you would ask such a thing, especially when you've chided others for doing the same thing no less than 5 times here.
Proof:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

you're asking me to prove a negative in your last sentence. An impossibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

I always know an argument is moot when I asked to prove a negative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Anyone realizes you can't prove a negative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

Can't prove a negative. First rule of debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

...it is impossible to prove a negative.

--------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

So prove it.

Like most liberals, you expect someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. I proved the evidence I introduced came from the Obama campaign. It's up to you to prove you're example is bonafide.

This has been yet another rebuttal of the lying liberal marxist slumlord brought to you by a simple southern boy from NC.

09-23-2012, 10:13 PM

txgp17

2016: Obama’s America Right at Your Desk

Even if you haven’t been able to make it to the theater for Dinesh D’Souza’s excellent and alarming 2016: Obama’s America, there is no excuse not to watch the movie when it is right here in front of you in its entirety:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mscvdioSb0w

2. Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money.

You cannot be serious. Is this how we arrived with $5 Trillion more in debt?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

6. Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

This is like OJ opening a shelter for battered women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

7. Pushed through and signed the Democratic-sponsored American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package.”

8. The Bush-led Great Recession was costing the economy nearly 800,000 jobs per month by the time President Obama took office. But by the end of his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economyby 3.5%.

Yet he continues to dictate cumbersome rulings to oil companies making it harder for them to sell energy. No wonder gas is $4 a gallon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

29. Signed an order banning gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the Executive Branch.

30. Signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years, and put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House.

Was this before of after he hired lobbyists after declaring they'd have no place in his regime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

38. Along with Congressional Democrats, pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression.

39. Through Dodd-Frank legislation, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

40. Through Dodd-Frank, the Executive Branch fashioned rules that reduce the influence of speculators in the oil market.

And the Juggernaut known as government never stops growing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

49. Along with Congressional Democrats, advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to assault anyone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

It was already against the law to assault someone. Passing another law does nothing for those willing to break the first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

52. Appointed more openly gay officials than anyone in history.

53. Appointed first openly transgender Cabinet Official in History.

Is this really something to brag about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

60. Under his guidance, National Labor Relations Board issued final rules that require all employers to prominently post employees' rights where all employees or prospective employees can see it, including websites and intranets, beginning November 2011.

And that same NLRB prohibited Boeing from moving their plant to a non-union state, something the government has no authority to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

64. Helped Democrats in Congress pass and signed the Civil Rights History Act.

Care to take a moment and remind us all what party is most responsible for passing the Civil Rights act of 1964? I'll save you the trouble, the REPUBLICANS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

65. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any previous president during his first six months in office.

He had to follow Michelle while she vacationed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

66. As he promised, he gave a speech at a major Islamic forum in Cairo early in his administration.

If you think anything in Somalia can be stabilized from Washington, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

77. Established new, more reasonable policies in our relations with Cuba, such as allowing Cuban-Americans to visit their families and send money to support them.

Why would anyone in Cuba need money from people in America? It's a communist nation so everything should be perfect. This alone discredits his own policies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

78. Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and, unfortunately, progressive Democrats) who prevented follow through.

He promised, and failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

83. In response to the emerging "Arab Spring," he created a Rapid Response fund, to assist emerging democracies with foreign aid, debt relief, technical assistance and investment packages in order to show that the United States stands with them.

And it has only made America's enemies stronger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

84. Passed the Iran Sanctions Act, to prevent war, and to encourage Iran to give up their nuclear program.

Yet the centrifuges continue to spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

85. Ended the Iraq War.

On the time-frame that Bush already had in place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

87. Created a comprehensive new strategy for dealing with the international nuclear threat.

By reducing our weapons more than anyone else has reduced theirs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

88. Authorized a $1.4 billion reduction in Star Wars program in 2010.

Making us more vulnerable to a nuclear attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

98. Took decisive action to use NATO to limit the slaughter of innocents in Libya, so that the Libyan people could topple a despotic government and determine their own fate.

And now those people attack and kill our Ambassador.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

His Administration Treated Soldiers and Veterans with Respect That Was Missing Previously

If by "beefed up" you mean do very little and prohibit anyone else from doing the job the Feds refuse to do, then yes, it's beefed up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

127. Opened up process for fast-tracking patent approval for green energy projects.

Solyndra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

129. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, committed more federal funding, about $18 billion, to support non-defense science and research labs.

Again with the failed Recovery Act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

134. Provided financial support for private sector space programs.

After turning our government space program into a Muslim outreach program. What a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

137. Through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, provided $500 million for Health Professions Training Programs.

Money down the toilet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

139. Oversaw a 50% decrease in cost of prescription drugs for seniors.

Sure hope this didn't have anything to with Medicare D, because you've chided it many times here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

143. Ushered through and signed Affordable Care Act, which expanded health insurance coverage to at least 30 million more people, ended many common insurance company practices that are often detrimental to those with coverage. He also established healthcare.gov, so that taxpayers could keep up with developments.

The largest tax increase in America's history. How can a law provide healthcare to more people without creating more doctors or nurses? If we can't afford the healthcare alone, how can we afford the healthcare and the bureaucracy too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

144. Through ACA, allowed children to be covered under their parents’ policy until they turned 26.

A 26 year old is not a child.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

153. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , cut taxes for 95% of America's working families.

169. Pushed through a tax credit to help people buy plug-in hybrid cars.

Yet people still aren't buying them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

170. Created a program to develop renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that will produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents.

Fairy tales. Just drill, the oil is there waiting on us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

180. Through his EPA, he asserted federal legal supremacy, and barred Texas from authorizing new refinery permits on its own.

That would explain why gas prices are so high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

185. Increased funding for National Parks and Forests by 10%

Nobody ever accused him of not spending other people's money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

187. Announced a huge increase in average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg in 2010 to 35.5mpg starting in 2016 and 54.5 starting in 2025

He has no concept of the law of diminishing returns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

189. Oversaw funding of the design of a new Smithsonian National Museum of African American History, which is scheduled to open on the National Mall in 2015. He protected the funding during the recent budget negotiations.

Like we didn't already know that he's good at spending money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

190. Oversaw and passed increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

More spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

191. Nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Justice in the court’s history, and the women represent only the third and fourth women to serve on the court, out of a total of 112 justices.

Sotomayor is a straight up racist, and Kagan is a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

194. Loosened the rules and allowed the 14 states that legalized medical marijuana to regulate themselves without federal interference.

But smoking pot is still illegal under federal law, and he refuses to enforce it. A dereliction of his oath of office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

195. Signed national service legislation, increasing funding for national service groups, including triple the size of the Americorps program.

Obama increased spending, you don't say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scfire86

200. Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office.

He had a filibuster proof majority, he got everything he wanted, except for them to approve his budget.

09-27-2012, 03:46 AM

Dialed

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

And yes, I have no issues raising taxes on the middle class (and that includes me) and poor. Reduce top rates on the rich as it's thier money .. they deserve to keep more of it. Elimniate or reduce earned income credits and mortagage deductions.

Hmmm...so we make sacrifices yet the rich get more breaks. Let me guess, you also blame cops & firefighters as the cause of the economic collapse? It's our outrageous pensions & salaries that caused everything right? Not deregulation of Wall Street, lowering of taxes on the super rich during a time of war, etc.? Speaking of war, how did we pay for our wars? Oh that's right, we didn't! Bush put it all on a credit card! Speaking of wars, what are we doing for our miltary brothers & sisters? I guess this is our answer http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ans-jobs-bill/ ....sadly.

09-27-2012, 04:00 AM

Dialed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper 45

Our union (IAFF) generally supports democrats. All I can say in my experience is that democrats have gutted my department, not republicans. I can also say, with all due regard, that republicans have supported us as firefighters by action, not just lip service.

Really? Most Firefighters in my area break it down like this:
They are conservative when it comes down to Presidential elections due to social issues (Abortion, gay marriage, etc). However, when it comes to local elections, they are strongly Democratic as they are the party that show their support via action (SAFER Grant, Assistance To Firefighters Grant, supporting their pensions, Collective Bargaining, etc.) rather than just words like the republican party (Who are opposed to Federal Firefighting Grants, Collective Bargaining for Firefighters, Pensions for Firefighters, etc.)

09-27-2012, 04:19 PM

LaFireEducator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dialed

Hmmm...so we make sacrifices yet the rich get more breaks. Let me guess, you also blame cops & firefighters as the cause of the economic collapse? It's our outrageous pensions & salaries that caused everything right? Not deregulation of Wall Street, lowering of taxes on the super rich during a time of war, etc.? Speaking of war, how did we pay for our wars? Oh that's right, we didn't! Bush put it all on a credit card! Speaking of wars, what are we doing for our miltary brothers & sisters? I guess this is our answer http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ans-jobs-bill/ ....sadly.

I support the rich being taxed at a lower rate simply because they have aa right to keep THEIR money, and that includes capital gains being taxed at the 15% as they are recieving a return on a risk that has already been taxed once.

The cause of the economic collpase is simple .. The democrats esentially forced through legislation during the Clinton era forcing banks to make home loans to lower income Americans that could never truly afford them on the BS premise that "all Americans should have the right to own a home". The truth is there is a large chunk of Americans that do not have the finanacial capability to own a home, and should be renting all thier lives, and we need to acknowledge it.

As far as firefigbhter and cop pensions, there are places where it's excessive. take a look at the State of NY as example, where the pension is based soley on the single largeast year. So guess what happens? the guys retiring get all the overtime and they end up with an inflated retirement number. And no, that's simply not right, and never will be.

And yes, I have always opposed SAFER as staffing should be a 100% local issue. i especially oopose the program now that it has become a way to keep firefighters hired in large urban areas at the expense of teaxpayers nationwide. if the community can cannot affor career fire protection .... we should not be subsidizing it. It's basically a payback to the union, plain and simple.

The same is true with AFG. That being said my department has gotten 4 grants from AFG, including 2 prevention grants under my watch. I have been isntructed to apply every year, even though I once again feel that fire protection, as well as law enforcement should be local. As far as the program itself i feel that irt is unfairly administered and needs to be seriously reformed if it is to be funded.

And no, as much as I support the military folks, I do not support preferencial hiring practices for ANYONE.

When you travel to a park, you'll frequently see signs asking you to not feed the wildlife. The reasons for this are simple, one of which is the animals may become dependent on hand-outs, causing it to develop behaviors that are destructive to itself.

The same rule applies to people, for we modify our behaviors too. By providing people with never-ending staples of life like food, housing, etc, we enable them to continue engaging in self-destructive behavior, and to go through life without developing desired knowledge, skills and abilities.

I'm not saying we should stop providing assistance to those in need, but we must avoid making the mistake of providing comfort to those who choose to produce nothing.

People who are dependent on others are not free. Does the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE ring a bell?